I made it up to make a point, and that point is that what’s good for the politically-correct goose ought to also be good for the traditionalist gander.

According to Fox News, California’s Ventura High School has “banned” Chick Fil-A chicken sandwiches for fear that the taste of a sandwich made by a company who held political views that run counter to … I guess the Ventura zeitgeist, if there is such a thing … might be “offensive.” Aside from the fact that this is a tempest in a crock pot kinda deal, it does tend to reflect the double standard we’ve got going here.

Imagine, if you will, if the made-up-by-me title to this post had been describing an actual/factual event. Can you wrap your mind around what would almost certainly be the plethora of critical blog posts denouncing “Christian bigots,” “dumb Okies” and probably the mothers of the school board members who had voted allowed this? I actually can imagine it, which is why I decided to write this post.

Because, you see, if it’s good for the politically-correct Ventura goose, then it should also be good for the traditionalist gander, wherever they reside.

Feathers have been ruffled at California’s Ventura High School, where the principal this week banned the football booster club from selling Chick-fil-A sandwiches over fears that people might be offended.

What, pray tell, could people find offensive about a plump juicy chicken breast tucked between two buttered buns?

Were English teachers put off by the restaurant chain’s grammatically challenged bovine pitchmen?Did the waffle fries and banana pudding milkshakes exceed the nutritional limits deemed acceptable by the federal government?

The answer, dear readers, is no. It seems Principal Val Wyatt’s ban has less to do with poultry and more to do with politics.

“With their political stance on gay rights and because the students of Ventura High School and their parents would be at the event, I didn’t want them on campus,” Wyatt told the Ventura County Star.

It was a sentiment supported by Trudy Tuttle Ariaga, superintendent of the Ventura Unified School District.

“We value inclusivity and diversity on our campus, and all our events and activities are going to adhere to our mission,” Ariaga told CBS News in Los Angeles.

Hey [redacted] the Feds are interviewing my “close friends and associates.” Perhaps if the authorities arrive “BuzzFeed GQ,” er HQ, may be wise to immediately request legal counsel before any conversations or interviews about our news-gathering practices or related journalism issues.

Also: I’m onto a big story, and need to go off the radat for a bit.

All the best, and hope to see you all soon.

Michael

By 4:30 am, Tuesday, June 18, Michael Hastings was dead.

Staff Sgt Joseph Biggs, who knew Hastings in Afghanistan, said of the email, “It alarmed me very much. I just said, it doesn’t seem like him. I don’t know, I just had a gut feeling, and it really bothered me.”

The FBI issued this statement soon after Hastings’ death denying that they were investigating him:

“At no time was journalist Michael Hastings under investigation by the FBI,” agency public affairs specialist Laura Eimiller told CBSNews.com and other outlets, after the organization WikiLeaks suggested as much in a tweet.

This statement was a departure from the FBI’s policy of neither confirming or denying investigations, and earlier statements from FBI representatives, refusing to comment.

The video below contains a reaction from The Young Turks concerning Mr Hastings. The speaker gets worked up and both he and the commenters go off into the weeds. However, I think their points concerning Michael Hastings are well taken.

If you know, you must have been there because the various news media enforced a near-total blackout on the event.

Let’s think about that for a moment.

Gay marriage is what you might call a “big” story. The Supreme Court was hearing two cases that have the potential to upend 2,000 years of teaching, law and culture concerning the fundamental unit on which all of Western civilization is built. That makes it an important story. Public conversation about this issue is focused and combative. That makes it a ratings grabber. The March for Marriage was the “other” side of the argument finally getting its act together and stepping up to public protest, which made it a man bites dog story, providing a new twist to a story that had already been done to death. That makes it interesting.

So. We have a story that gives a new angle to an important topic, that draws widespread public interest at a time when public interest is already focused on the issue. Sounds like a win-win-win for the media. All they had to do was cover it.

Which they did not.

I repeat: What happened at the March for Marriage last week? I would not be surprised if most of the coverage of that event that you saw was right here on Public Catholic and other Christian blogs and web sites. You may have, as I did, had to go to the Facebook page sponsored by the March for Marriage organizers to get any news of the event.

This was the news story that wasn’t. Because the media is promoting gay marriage. They are hard-selling it. And this march ran counter to their true objectives, which appear to be not so much to inform the public as to propagandize the public.

There are a number of reasons why public support for gay marriage appears to be reaching a tipping point in favor of it. The continuous, completely biased and often inaccurate media propaganda in favor of it is one of them.

Significant news came out of last Tuesday’s March for Marriage demonstration in Washington, D.C. But it didn’t make “news” in the major media.

As one who covered the event, it was significant that there were so many members of minority groups. This was not a mostly white crowd. In addition to the presence of black, Hispanic and Asian supporters of traditional marriage, there were some notable Democrats, such as New York State Senator Ruben Díaz, and he let people know he was several minorities in one.

“I’m Puerto Rican,” he said. “I’m black, with kinky hair. I am a Democrat and I am a senator. I’m against abortion. I’m against same-sex marriage, and I won the last election with 89 percent of the vote.”

J.C. Derrick of World magazine has a good analysis of how the major media, led by The Washington Post, virtually ignored the March for Marriage. But unless you actually see what happened on the ground, as the thousands of traditional marriage supporters held their demonstration, you would miss the true significance of how dishonest the media’s coverage of this issue has become …

… The video excerpts are interesting, in that a self-proclaimed homosexual man, Doug Mainwaring, co-founder of the National Capital Tea Party Patriots, was also shown opposing homosexual marriage …

… His speech at the March for Marriage included the admonition that the Supreme Court should “ignore the media’s relentless, manufactured urgency to institute same-sex marriage.”

That media campaign, as we revealed in a recent column, includes the National Lesbian & Gay Journalists Association (NLGJA), funded by all of the major news organizations. Natalie Morales of NBC’s Today Show was the host of the March 21 New York fundraiser for the group …

… But the omissions and distortions don’t end there. On the NBC Nightly News on Tuesday night, host Brian Williams claimed that a majority of Americans now support homosexual marriage. But the Reuters Corporation recently released the results of a huge poll finding only 41 percent of America supports it.

The company tried to mask the results by highlighting majority support for benefits for “same-sex couples.” But the story about the poll notes in the fourth paragraph that only 41 percent of people say same-sex couples should be permitted to marry …

… Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council commented, “If 41% was all the support Reuters could scrounge up for same-sex ‘marriage,’ then you know they exhausted every avenue trying to push that number higher — and couldn’t.”

NBC News correspondent Kristen Dahlgren did a story on Tuesday’s Brian Williams newscast on “TV’s impact on the gay marriage debate” which totally ignored the role of NBC News, which like CBS News and Fox News, funds one side of the debate — the NLGJA. (Read more here.)

Cliff Kincaid is the Director of the Accuracy In Media Center for Investigative Journalism, and can be contacted at cliff.kincaid@aim.org.

Live Action and Fox News report that a Colorado woman has filed suit against Planned Parenthood for subjecting her to an abortion she had refused and then abandoning her when she experienced complications.

Ayanna Byer asserts that she told the Planned Parenthood abortionist that she had decided against having an abortion, but that the doctor went ahead with the procedure despite this. Then, “due to Ms Byer crying from pain” she alleges that the same doctor stopped before the abortion was complete. She says she was given prescriptions for pain and antibiotics and sent home.

When she began to experience complications, she says that Planned Parenthood told her that they did not offer abortion follow-up care. Ms Byer’s went to a hospital, where she ended up having to have more surgery. It sounds as if the surgeon who took care of her was outraged by what he found. He accused Planned Parenthood of abandoning their patient.

My reaction when I read this is that situations like this are what pro-choice advocates claim legal abortion will prevent. The whole argument for keeping abortion legal hangs on the contention that without it women will end up being treated much as Ms Byer says she was by Planned Parenthood. Based on stories I’ve heard from other women, I do not think her experience is all that rare.

I know women who have had legal abortions at abortion clinics here in America. Some of them received IV medication for pain, while others had to go through the entire surgery without pain medication. Those who did not receive pain medication have told me that it was a very painful experience. One of them was so traumatized that it took her years to fully remember what had happened.

Dumping women after an abortion and letting them find help for complications as best they can was supposed to have ended with Roe v Wade.

I know full well that supporters of legal abortion are going to line up with excuses for Planned Parenthood’s actions in this. I expect they’ll also trot about accusations against Live Action and Fox News for reporting the story.

However, if “women’s health care” is really the overriding concern for them that they claim it is, they should be angry about what happened to Ms Byer and demanding reforms so that it never happens again. I do not expect that to happen.

Based on my experience with this issue, any attempts to impose regulations on abortion clinics will be met with cries of “anti-choice” and “pushing women into the back alleys again.” Even the most common-sense reforms such as requiring doctors who perform abortions to have hospital privileges at a nearby hospital, or requiring that those who perform abortions be licensed physicians, are characterized as “attacks on women’s health care” and “driving women into the back alleys.”

Abortion proponents do not want women to be given accurate information about the child they are carrying. They do not want parents of minor children to be told that their daughters are going to undergo surgery. They do not want requirements that licensed physicians perform abortions, or in the case of abortion drugs, that licensed physicians administer the drugs. They do not want the abortionists to be required to have hospital privileges. I could go on and on. Abortion proponents appear to want a caveat emptor situation so far as abortion is concerned. I do not believe that this attitude reflects concern for “health care for women” or for women’s well-being.

I remember what life was like before Roe v Wade. I knew girls who had illegal abortions back then, including one who became grievously ill due to an incomplete abortion. That experience was the driving force behind my advocacy for legal abortion earlier in my life. Ms Byer’s story of what happened to her and that of my friend who become ill from an illegal abortion are not all that different.

From what Ms Byer’s complaint says, I take better care of my 21-year-old cat than Planned Parenthood took care of her.

And that’s a fact.

A Live Action article describing Ms Byer’s lawsuit says in part:

When Ayanna Byer scheduled an appointment at Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains to take an abortion pill to end her pregnancy, there was no way for her to foresee the horrors ahead of her. Earlier this month, Byer, through the assistance of the attorneys at Alliance Defending Freedom, brought a lawsuit to hold Planned Parenthood liable for the botched abortion that she did not consent to.

According to that complaint, when Byer arrived at the Planned Parenthood clinic, it was determined that her pregnancy was too far along to be terminated through the use of a pill, therefore a surgical abortion was recommended. Ms. Byer agreed upon the condition that she would receive IV anesthesia, for which she would be charged extra. Although the employees could not get the IV started, the doctor came to start the procedure anyway.

The complaint states:

“At this time, Plaintiff immediately told the Planned Parenthood Doctor to stop and that she did not want to go through with the abortion procedure because she had not received any anesthetic. Plaintiff also informed Planned Parenthood Doctor and agents or employees of Planned Parenthood Defendants that she believed this to be a sign she should not go through with the abortion. The Planned Parenthood Doctor did not stop despite Plaintiff’s request, and assured Plaintiff the I.V. would be administered and the procedure would only take a few minutes.

At this time, the Planned Parenthood Doctor turned on the vacuum machines and told Plaintiff it was too late to stop.”

Seven minutes later, due to Ms. Byer crying from pain, the procedure finally stopped. She received an apology and a prescription for a painkiller and antibiotics and was sent on her way. Planned Parenthood never followed up with her.

About two days later, Ms. Byer went to the hospital due to pain and bleeding, where it was found that part of the aborted baby was still inside her, resulting in an infection. She had to have emergency surgery.

“It is not acceptable to refer your patients to the emergency department and assume the on-call doctor will take care of any complications and assume all the risk associated with the complications.

No practicing physician can maintain privileges to practice and perform surgery if they do not provide specific coverage for their patients in case of a complication. It is considered abandonment of your patient.”

The complaint alleges seven different claims for relief. (Read more here.)

Follow Public Catholic!

Popular at Patheos Catholic

Representative Rebecca Hamilton, 18-year member of the Oklahoma House of Representatives talks about life as a Public Catholic. Read her Bio Here

Blog Rules

I want Public Catholic to be a welcoming place. As my mother would say, be polite. What that means is use courtesy and civility. It also means do not attempt to hijack the board with your personal agendas. Public Catholic is a Catholic, Christian blog. I created it to empower Christians to stand for Jesus in today's world. Repetitive, harassing attacks against the faith, Jesus or the Church are not welcome here. Address others with respect and refer to public figures in the same way. No name calling. No cursing. No hitting. No spitting.